About your Search

20121101
20121130
STATION
CNNW 17
CNN 15
MSNBCW 4
MSNBC 3
KGO (ABC) 2
WJLA (ABC) 2
WMAR (ABC) 2
CNBC 1
KCSM (PBS) 1
KPIX (CBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 67
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 67 (some duplicates have been removed)
.s. consulate in benghazi and said if you nominate susan rice to be secretary of state, they will do everything in their power to block her nomination as senator graham said, he simply doesn't trust ambassador rice after what she said about benghazi. i would like your reaction to that and would those threats deter you from making a nomination like that? >> well, first of all, i'm not going to comment at this point on various nominations i'll put forward to fill out my cabinet for the second term. those are things that are still being discussed. but let me say specifically about susan rice, she has done exemplary work. she has represented the united states and our interests in the united nations with skill and professionalism and toughness and grace. as i said before, she made an appearance at the request of the white house in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. and i'm happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. a
for susan rice. somebody is blatantly lying. we'll get to the bottom of that and much more as "hannity" continues. [ male announcer ] research suggests cell health plays a key role throughout our lives. one a day men's 50+ is a complete multi-vitamin designed for men's health concerns as we age. it has more of 7 antioxidants to support cell health. one a day men's 50+. to support cell health. try running four.ning a restaurant is hard, fortunately we've got ink. it gives us 5x the rewards on our internet, phone charges and cable, plus at office supply stores. rewards we put right back into our business. this is the only thing we've ever wanted to do and ink helps us do it. make your mark with ink from chase. i took my son fishing every year. we had a great spot, not easy to find, but worth it. but with copd making it hard to breathe, i thought those days might be over. so my doctor prescribed symbicort. it helps significantly improve my lung function starting within five minutes. symbicort doesn't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden symptoms. with symbicort, today i'm breathing better.
for susan rice. somebody is blatantly lying. we'll get to the bottom of that we'll get to the bottom of that and much more as "hannnnnnnnnnnn try running four.ning a restaurant is hard, fortunately we've got ink. it gives us 5x the rewards on our internet, phone charges and cable, plus at office supply stores. rewards we put right back into our business. this is the only thing we've ever wanted to do and ink helps us do it. make your mark with ink from chase. >>> welcome back to hannity. the main street media continue to take their liberal position on the israeli/palestinian conflict. you won't believe it, but watch this. >> living under the threat of rocket attack is search a psych logical trauma. what would you say to those that the rogh rockets rarely do damad the response of the israelis is disproportionate. >> i would say to the ones who have been killed, the 150 who have been wounded, these rockets pair lies an entire ken. there is no school. people cannot go out of their houses, out of their bomb shelters. again, that's an ultimate terly intolerable situation for any country.
the reputation of his united nations ambassador susan rice. much more cautious comments from the president about the david petraeus scandal and the fbi's investigation. we're covering all the angles of his first news conference since the election. and israel retaliates for rocket attacks with deadly strikes and extremist targets. now hamas is warning that the gates of hell have been opened. i'm wolf blitzer. you're in "the situation room." >>> eight days after his re-election, president obama faced reporters in the midst of an unfolding scandal and with a potential economic crisis holding over his head. but he only got riled up when he responded to republican criticism of his united nations ambassador susan rice. more on that coming up. standby. but first, the president's careful responses about the investigation of this former cia chief david petraeus and on negotiations to avoid what's called the fiscal cliff. our white house correspondent jessica yellin was over at the east strip of the white house. you had a chance to speak to the president and ask him about that looming fiscal cliff. >> rep
. >> that leads us now to susan rice, the u.s. ambassador to the united nations who went on national television and said this attack in benghazi, libya, was probably because of this anti-muslim film. >> reporter: exactly. >> she had talking points, right? where did those talking points come from? did they come from petraeus and the cia, were they edited later by the white house, do we know? >> reporter: we don't know. you heard peter king was asked that specific question. according to him and some others, we still don't know exactly where the disconnect was, if you will, between what the intelligence community now says that they believed at the time and the talking points that ended up with susan rice that ended up on television that sunday afterwards. it still doesn't seem to be very clear. the reason why he is now the former cia director is because of the affair that david petraeus had. he resigned one week ago. the question is whether or not that would come up at all. he said it was addressed at the beginning and he regretted what happened and that they didn't really address it at all after
tragedy. but we have an explanation from petraeus for why susan rice said what she said. that is to say they deliberately obscured what they knew in order to avoid giving away too much to our adversaries. now you could say why did you need to do that? i'm not competent to say what advantage was gained there, but i'm not sure in the alternative what advantage anyone thinks the obama administration was going to get by misleading. the event happened. did anyone think the obama administration was trying to preserve some illusion that terrorists never would hit us as long as obama was president? we have been at war with terrorists 11 years and lost thousands of lives. i don't understand the point that graham is making, and the idea to question why did you put susan rice on the talk shows? administrations make decisions every week about who they will put out to repeat talking points. it doesn't really make much sense to me to be honest. >> to that end, then, amy, you have senator graham, other republicans, john mccain for one, they are calling for a special prosecutor. john harwood brings up
on the deadly attack begin as president obama lashes out at republicans for attacking u.n. ambassador susan rice. >> if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody they should go after me. and i'm happy to have that discussion with them. for them to go after the u.n. ambassador who had nothing to do with benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received and besmirch her reputation is outrageous. >> i knee people don't come to spontaneous demonstrations with rockets and mortars for the president of the united states for two weeks afterwards to deny that was the case, is either a coverup or it is incompetence. >> ahead this hour, one of the republicans calling for a wider probe, new hampshire senator kelly ayotte. and what's going on with the generals? leon panetta orders ethics review. the fbi agent, he's the guy who brought down the millennium bomber. >>> taking out the military leader of hamas and fire from the gaza strip. >> israel will continue to take whatever action is necessary to defend our people. >> we'll talk to michae
not to make susan rice the next secretary of state, calling -- saying that she either willfully or incompetently misled the american public in the handling of the van ghazi matter. >> i would say that their understanding of the constitution and their role in conformations is illustrative of their overall general knowledge. i think this is a very difficult one for the president. he stood up for her in a press conference and said, might you have a problem is with me. he all but seemed to suggest that he would name her secretary of state. even if she is the best candidate, and there are many people would think she is not a, to take on that confirmation fight over the at the same time that you have all of these other things, from the fiscal clift to the middle east crisis, to take that on now is not the most responsible thing to do. >> is susan rice being scapegoats it? >> i did not take from the president's comments that he was necessarily going to nominate her. i did think he was saying to senator mccain and senator gramm, kemosabi and tonto, look, pick on someone your own size. t
meant for the susan rice appearance recentlyally contain the information that there was evidence of al qaeda's elements involved in this attack. but it appears as if those talking points were altered by the white house or somebody close to the white house to remove any reference to al qaeda's involvement in the attacks. we have yet to discover who has changed the talking points to make the president look for favorable and mislead you, by falsely labeling the 9/11 attacks over spontaneous mob over the video. petraeus has no idea what was provided to rice or who was the author of the talking points that she used that, he had no idea she was going on the talk shows until the white house announced it one or two days before. now, the looming question is, in this coverup, who did it? now, earlier, fox's own katherineererridge explained where the talking points went once they left the cia. >> what we are told about the talking points is that it went through an inter-agency review, including the department of justice, the state department, agencies and that at the end of the day you have this
that they didn't change anything that the intelligence report went to susan rice other than what you named the consulate or dip the maic facility. what do you make of that? >> well, what is the issue that has been raised as a result of that? i think we all know the intelligence community had created the talking points that did come out about the incident that occurred. the purpose is to make sure that any information or that they would give to the media would not be classified. i think that's how a lot of these issues with the talking points started and the issue that's been raised in the last couple of days has been the issue of having al qaeda taken out of the talking points and putting extremists in there. my answer to that is that the analysts who would have made those different changes and you have the intelligence committee that is analyzed and they give it to the administration or us. what happened in that situation is there are some who have said that by taking the word al qaeda out and putting extremist that changed the content. i don't see it that way. i think extremist covers a
points used by susan rice and in the classified talking points which had a completely different set of conclusions in terms of who did this, when they did it, how they did it. so i think we're left with more confusion, if, in fact, the article by eric schmidt in "the new york times" is correct it would indicate that these unclassified talking points had a specific purpose to deceive the american people, but more importantly to deceive al qaeda so that they could continue to monitor their communications. so i think there are still a lot of questions out there, and i'm not sure the last couple of days have clarified much. >> fascinating. let me turn to you nick, depending again when you talk to, there you have a top general saying it's gotten a lot muddier. it's just the danger when you have the need to keep stuff classified because you're going off to certain groups who may have done this and sending people off to ambassador rice to >> in some ways, mark is right it has gotten muddier. at the end of the day while it is clear that security is inadequate in benghazi and while it's clea
is is who exexunged the al qaeda terrorism line before it was given to susan rice and she was sent out on those five sunday morning talk shows to say no it was actually a film and a riot gone bad. so as you know there were a couple of senators who say that they have lost faith with susan rice. that she went out and said something misleading. but the president, at his first press conference since being reelected said, please, don't blame her, in fact, he went so far to say she had nothing to do -- knee knew nothing about benghazi. she had nothing to do with benghazi. here he is defending susan rice. >> she made an appearance at the request of the white house in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. >> so. >> okay. then why the heck did you send her out there? she knew nothing about what happened. petraeus was in washington. several other high ranking officials who knew what happened were in washington. if you want us to go after you, then
anxiety. bill: who changed the talking points on benghazi before susan rice hit the talk show circuit and peter king wants answers. he's here live in minutes. >> the talking point were drafted to. they said after it went through the process, which they seemed unclear about, that was taken out. . because your daughter really wants that pink castle thing. and you really don't want to pay more than you have to. only citi price rewind automatically searches for the lowest price. and it finds one, you get refunded the difference. just use your citi card and register your purchase online. have a super sparkly day! ok. [ male announcer ] now all you need is a magic carriage. citi price rewind. buy now. save later. bill: hamas is saying the conflict is all the fault of israel. fan it wants the violence to end it needs to give in to the group's demands. we just spoke to the israeli ambassador and he says the burden is on hamas. >> there is in country on earth that would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders. we are fully supportive of israel's right to defend
susan rice. he does not know who the author of the final version was and these talking points would be uses as the basis for the statements on sunday talk shows on september 16th that this was spontaneous event and linked to the anti-islam video. lawmakers said they wanted to stay very focused on the attack itself and not the former director's personal problems. >> human nature is what it is but the intent going we'll limit the conversation to the events of 9/11 and forward throughout the rest of the, six, eight weeks ensued since the attacks on our consulate. >> reporter: in addition to what's unfolding here on capitol hill fox news separately has confirmed the cia has begun a preliminary investigation into the former director's tenure at the cia. that would include whether any cia assets or materials if you will were used to facilitate this affair or alleged affair with his biographer, paula broadwell, bill. bill: a lot of people look at this on the outside and look at today as a day where you might be able to settle some things but in all honesty how much will be settled after to
president obama defended u.n. ambassador susan rice who was criticized for her remarks immediately following this attack. she is reportedly in contention to succeed hillary clinton as our secretary of state, take a listen. >> if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. and i'm happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador who had nothing to do with benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received, and to besmurch her reputation is outrageous. jenna: senator john cornyn of texas what's elected to be the senate's minority whip, a bit of a promotion if you will. thanks to have you back on the program. >> thank you, jenna, good to be with you. jenna: your reaction on what the president had to say yesterday in. >> i thought it was an overreaction to say the least. congress has a constitutional responsibility under our system of checks and balances to consider any nominations to an executive branch position, like secretary of state. the president knows that. i us
first testified and briefed capitol hill and apparently after ambassador susan rice made those comments. >> that's why it's so significant, it also came after ambassador rice's appearance on the sunday shows, where she is now being grilled by john mccain and others. i'm talking to him in a few minutes. so it's very significant i think what general petraeus believed at the time. it does beg a belief, really, why would ambassador rice go on national television, having had a briefing we believe from the cia, which turned out to be flawed if the director of the cia right away knew this was an al qaeda affiliated group? >> yeah, you know, it's washington, isn't it. i mean, you know, the theory, what petraeus is expected to talk about is he had his talking points. he got them declassified, approved to go out there in public. when ambassador rice started talking from her talking points, this included other information that wasn't exactly what the cia thought might be really going on. i think some members of capitol hill have brought it down to this point, was the obama administration incredibl
of the deadly attack of a u.s. consulate in libya, including whether ambassador susan rice's so-called talking points were altared the weekend after she gave that announcem of the attack. >> she didn't know anything about the attack in benghazi and the most politically compliant person. i don't know what she knew, but i know that the story she told was misleading. >> the debate on the hill intensified by general david petraeus' testimony friday that they suspected terrorism from the very beginning. >> why do you tell the american public something that is different in meaning? it should be perhaps leave out the details or the sources and then -- >> well, again, though, the details here were al qaeda. >> before you get to the question of what susan rice should or shouldn't have said, i think that we need to know the answer of who changed the talking points and why. >> okay. so let's get to the bottom of this and say good morning to the political power panel. we have susan page, and msnbc analyst karen finney and also a columnist for "the hill" and also the campaign manager for rick sanitorium's
controversial coming out of these briefings, whether or not susan rice, the u.n. ambassador -- the u.s. ambassador to the u.n., had the proper information or was correct in what she said publicly about the attack being probably at that point four days after the attack because of a demonstration. democrats are really to a person coming to her defense aggressively and trying to explain why there was a discrepancy. listen to kent conrad of the democratic member of the senate health care community. >> what is very clear is that ambassador rice used the talking points that the intelligence committee had all signed off on. that is very, very clear. she used the unclassified talking points that were signed off on by the entire intelligence community, so criticisms of her are completely unwarranted. that is very clear. >> and susan, dianne feinstein, just moments ago actually took out and read the unclassified talking points that susan rice used on that day, and they were very short. it sounds like there were two, maybe three points in the talking points, and it was almost certain to change.
's assessment, susan rice's assessment or your own assessment? >> i think what we first learned in the few hours and days immediately after the attack to today, the intelligence has evolved. certainly there was taking time to gather the information, to analyze it and put forward an assessment. what we do know is that when director petraeus came before us on the 14th, the information that he gave us was not the information that was put out by ambassador rice or by the administration. so it begs the question why wasn't a more complete picture given to the american public more quickly than it was? >> okay. you said that the intelligence has evolved, which means just from a layman's term, you would think that as they gathered information, they learned more than things would change. just from people sitting at home and not for partisans or for people who are on capitol hill, are you actually talk ing to each other about -- getting to the bottom of this or is everyone just talking at each other because i would imagine no administration wants anyone to die on their watch. >> certainly we are talking to
any talking points at all to susan rice the u.s. ambassador. and, i'm sorry, the u.n. ambassador for the u.s. and says he almost knew immediately this was a terror attack. what he tells congress behind closed doors today should be interesting to shedding some very credible light on what happened there. he was in charge at the time. visited, recently, even after, this whole scandal was coming to light. so, fascinating to be a flay on that wall today should be interesting. >> he is reportedly very eager to disseminate information and discovery over in libya and to share the time line of events as well. >> indeed. we will stay on top of that. >>> fighting between israel and palestinian has come to a temporary halt. israeli officials agreed to stop the wave of air strikes on gaza while the egyptian prime minister visits. >>> there is hope that egypt's leader will be able to broker some sort of truce between hamas and israelis. earlier 100 missiles landed in gaza bringing the death toll there to 19. >>> a record settlement for the worst environmental disaster in u.s. history. bp will
the killings in benghazi the u.s. ambassador to the united nations susan rice said what she said about the spontaneous reaction? >> well, i've always thought based on what we heard from the very start that there was a big disconnect between the information i thought i was looking at and what the president said yesterday they had. i thought the most interesting thing in the president's comments yesterday was that susan rice had all of the information they had and related all of that information. that just doesn't seem reasonable to me. if they did -- if that was all the information they had, i wonder why somebody at the white house wasn't asking more questions. and that may be the biggest question here as we go forward. >> are you with some of those republicans like senator mccain, senator lindsey graham who will do everything in their power to block her nomination as secretary of state if it goes forward? >> well, i think again, the question there is what did ambassador rice know? why is that what she knew? and why was she the person sent out to represent the administration? the presid
from u.s. ambassador to the united nations, susan rice who said publicly on five sunday talk shows that the attack was spontaneous and sparked by an anti-muslim film. the director of the national intelligence office says substantial changes were made before those talking points were sent. but the question still remains who made the changes an why and did anyone in the white house know the full unedited version of events which included that link to al-qaeda? tonight, the state department has no comment, neither does the cia. georgia senator johnny isaacsohn is on the foreign relations committee. he says the administration is accountable, he's demanding answers and he's "outfront" tonight. thanks very much for taking the time. as we can report, this is late r reporting here that we have tonight, but the bell jensen community is saying look, we made the changes, we made them. do you believe it? >> well, it's the first i've heard of it, eastern. you got me on a surprise, but i know director clapper very well. i'm not going to question his word, but it's a little late given all the test
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 67 (some duplicates have been removed)